Infiniti will turn to turbocharged 4- and 6-cylinder engines, hybrids, full electrics

"And another one gone, and another one gone / Another one bites the dust"

Well, it looks as though the recently approved CAFE standards that aim to increase automobile fuel economy to 54.5mpg by 2025 have claimed another victim. Infiniti currently has V8 engine options available in its M luxury sedan, FX crossover, and QX sport utility vehicles, but that likely won't be the case in future iterations of those vehicles.

According to a report by AutoGuide, increasingly stringent fuel economy and emissions regulations mean that V8 engines are no longer on the table for Infiniti vehicles. V8 engines have traditionally been available in luxury vehicles as a symbol of prestige and power, but Infiniti will look to new ways to bring powerful engines to its lineup while still keeping fuel economy in check.

“I don’t think any car that is on Infiniti drawing boards from here onwards we should expect a V8 to be included in that plan,” Johan de Nysschen, Infiniti's global president.

For entry-level and mid-range models will also see a shift in available engines as well. Infiniti's current workhorse engine is the 3.7-liter “VQ” V6, but Nissan is also working on a turbocharged four-cylinder engine to deliver comparable power and vastly improved fuel economy.

Infiniti isn't the only luxury maker to drop a V8 engine from its lineup. When Lexus redesigned its mid-range GS sedan, it dropped the 4.6-liter V8 engine option and instead launched the vehicle with a 3.5-liter V6 and a 3.5-liter V6/performance hybrid model for those that want the power of a V8.

quote: The UK implement an annual road tax based on how efficient the car is, and on how much pollution it generates.

To figure out how efficient a car is, they need to know how many MPG you get. Since fuel economy can be significantly worse, especially in an efficient car, due to driving habits, they'll need to monitor your driving habits to get an accurate reading. To figure out how much pollution it generates, they need a way of monitoring the CO2 output of the car. The separation of efficiency and pollution generation as a metric dictates this needs to be a separate piece of equipment. Since any of these pieces of equipment can be temporarily modified, the only sure way to get the right number is to put a GPS in every vehicle so that the government can monitor how many miles you are actually driving as you drive them. Interestingly, this has already been suggested as the method for applying a CO2 based tax to vehicles.

Now they could just assume a certain efficiency out of certain vehicles. Lets ignore the eventual rush to make vehicles that pass whatever test they are subjected to, regardless of how the perform in the real world. This is a simplification that makes the metric less accurate and open to abusing (I.E. Company A that donates to your campaign gets more favorable ratings and/or tests are designed with their vehicles in mind). They could also assume that 1 gallon of gas will produce the same amount of pollution regardless of how much of it is burned at once. However, if you do that, then you remove the need for more monitoring equipment.

Err, .. wait. In the end, a gallon of gasoline will release the same amount of pollution whether it carries you 1 mile or 100 miles and regardless of whether it burned by a motorcycle or a truck. This suggests a very accurate simplification to system can be made. Charge the tax based on how much gas is consumed. As an added benefit, it can be charged at the pump, with no need to worry about people modifying equipment to dodge the tax, and without costly new equipment that may or may not violate privacy rights. Such a system would also save tax payer money as it would require far less government administration. If only someone had thought of this sooner ... oh, wait, we already pay tax at the pump. I guess if we really want to push efficient vehicles, we could just raise the gas tax.

I thought it was based on MPG, but I was wrong. I agree with you about the problems in monitoring MPG (seeing how variable it can be in relation to driving habits).

quote: Err, .. wait. In the end, a gallon of gasoline will release the same amount of pollution whether it carries you 1 mile or 100 miles and regardless of whether it burned by a motorcycle or a truck.

Thats not true at all. It can vary depending on the octane level, impurities, engine design, age of catalytic converter, etc. In controlled lab conditions you might be right, but out on the road there would be many variables that affect the final figure.

quote: Charge the tax based on how much gas is consumed.

Some have suggested modifying the road tax system to incorporate a tax based on miles travelled per year, based on odometer readings. Higher odometer reading = more tax.Cars in the UK already have to pass an annual roadworthiness test known as an MOT - this system could easily be incorporated into that without a massive increase in bureaucracy.

Such a system would also encourage greater use of public transport, car pooling, use of bikes and maybe even things like teleconferencing and flexible working hours.

quote: Some have suggested modifying the road tax system to incorporate a tax based on miles travelled per year, based on odometer readings. Higher odometer reading = more tax.

Again, this is completely idiotic, and seems to me to suggest a tendency to try to over-legislate everything. You want to tax not only miles driven but fuel efficiency? Don't rate vehicles on efficiency (open to corruption) and force people to give odometer readings (just another small hassle among many others), simply tax each gallon of fuel and be done with it. People that drive more will pay more. People with less efficient vehicles that drive the same number of miles will pay more. People with less efficient vehicles that drive more will pay through the nose. It's elegant in its simplicity, and it's fair, something Big Govt's don't like (less to enforce means fewer govt jobs).

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer